Unapologetic Anti-Theist. It is my belief that religion is demonstrably wrong in all its forms. Anything malignant can have occasional positive side effects. Sheer passage of time (or the tradition that ESTJ's love so much) doesn’t mean we should treat an institution with undue reverence. Even if God could be proven to exist, this existence does not account for the need to construct an organised dogmatic structure. This creates a system that is not only divisive but discourages independent thought creating a society that has underdeveloped critical faculties.

Belief in a celestial dictatorship that only has a bronze age holy book as evidence to back it up is not something we should be encouraging, particularly when nothing that was written in any of the holy books could not have been written by any human being alive at the time, indeed the very ignorant assertions and petty views portrayed prove that it must have been written by a non-divine and non-perfect being. I do not say this in order to offend, this is just what I genuinely believe. Society without any God or supernatural assertions would be infinitely better, the scientific method not only has evidence to back it up, it also encourages society to think for itself.

Unapologetic Anti-Theist. It is my belief that religion is demonstrably wrong in all its forms. Anything malignant can have occasional positive side effects. Sheer passage of time (or the tradition that ESTJ's love so much) doesn’t mean we should treat an institution with undue reverence. Even if God could be proven to exist, this existence does not account for the need to construct an organised dogmatic structure. This creates a system that is not only divisive but discourages independent thought creating a society that has underdeveloped critical faculties.

Belief in a celestial dictatorship that only has a bronze age holy book as evidence to back it up is not something we should be encouraging, particularly when nothing that was written in any of the holy books could not have been written by any human being alive at the time, indeed the very ignorant assertions and petty views portrayed prove that it must have been written by a non-divine and non-perfect being. I do not say this in order to offend, this is just what I genuinely believe. Society without any God or supernatural assertions would be infinitely better, the scientific method not only has evidence to back it up, it also encourages society to think for itself.

Hmm, interesting, your views of course say more about you than they do about, for instance my RCC faith, just as your sweeping presumptions about a non-religious, secular alternative are unsupported.

Its interesting to look at the thread in over view, I dont see any of the religious believers making any kind of statements which could be typified as "ignorant assertions" and "petty views", they equally have nothing to say about atheism and anti-theism, as in they do not suppose that world without either would be different or a vastly improved one.

In my experience the anti-theist perspective is one which requires religion and a deity almost as much or more than a theist one, how can it be or what is its substance in and off itself? It hasnt got any.

I dont know whether you mean to offend or not but anyone with an ounce of intelligence can deconstruct your post and realise that the language you use is provocative, sincerely held belief or not.

If only humanity had come up with the theory of evolution before inventing the written word. Or invented web forums before swords so they could sarcastically deconstruct each others' posts instead of killing each other.

Unapologetic Anti-Theist. It is my belief that religion is demonstrably wrong in all its forms. Anything malignant can have occasional positive side effects. Sheer passage of time (or the tradition that ESTJ's love so much) doesn’t mean we should treat an institution with undue reverence. Even if God could be proven to exist, this existence does not account for the need to construct an organised dogmatic structure. This creates a system that is not only divisive but discourages independent thought creating a society that has underdeveloped critical faculties.

Belief in a celestial dictatorship that only has a bronze age holy book as evidence to back it up is not something we should be encouraging, particularly when nothing that was written in any of the holy books could not have been written by any human being alive at the time, indeed the very ignorant assertions and petty views portrayed prove that it must have been written by a non-divine and non-perfect being. I do not say this in order to offend, this is just what I genuinely believe. Society without any God or supernatural assertions would be infinitely better, the scientific method not only has evidence to back it up, it also encourages society to think for itself.

I do not share your anti-theist perspective, but I agree with most of your assertions, especially the highlighted. Yes, critical thinking skills are woefully undervalued and underdeveloped, at least in contemporary U.S. society, a situation that undercuts democracy as well as leaving people open to manipulation by organizations, religious and otherwise.

I find there are some questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered using the scientific method, but the many "sacred scriptures" in the world often provide even less satisfying answers, at least taken individually.

If only humanity had come up with the theory of evolution before inventing the written word. Or invented web forums before swords so they could sarcastically deconstruct each others' posts instead of killing each other.

If ever I've read a good description of a 'typical' INFP perspective on religion.... nicely/pithily/simply enunciated.

I do not share your anti-theist perspective, but I agree with most of your assertions, especially the highlighted. Yes, critical thinking skills are woefully undervalued and underdeveloped, at least in contemporary U.S. society, a situation that undercuts democracy as well as leaving people open to manipulation by organizations, religious and otherwise.

I find there are some questions that cannot be satisfactorily answered using the scientific method, but the many "sacred scriptures" in the world often provide even less satisfying answers, at least taken individually.

I encounter this kind of talk, all, the, time, I'm not suggesting that you could be typical of it in anyway, since I dont really know you, but when I do encounter people talking about critical thinking they usually mean people thinking as they do, some of the most closed off and resistant to insight individuals I've met pride themselves on being critical.

Eric Fromm and Herbert Marcuse's relationship was typified by this sort of clash which escalated to a major fall out. Superficially it looks like "I'm critical", "No you're not", "yes, I am" and on and on.

So far as "sacred scriptures" goes, there are lots and lots of "sacred" topics which have been created by those "critically" responding to received or normative wisdom, these topics are totally unassailable, impossible to talk about without accusations or suspiscions of bigotry flooding in.

I think its much worse than the monolith of beliefs and enforcement which has passed away because even the average person could think of a way to challenge it, now people just choose their blinkers or camps and get comfortable, bed down and dig the trenches deeper.

My conclusions have not come about from any determination to choose a camp and stick to it. It is precisely because I have thought critically that I have reached my own opinions. I used to go to church, I have seen how religion works within a small community and I have made a study of the bible. I am in no way closed off to any idea, the assertions I made were merely what I got out from my experience, and clearly it is my own opinion. This is my belief, it is impossible to ever have absolute truth and I am not pretending to make such a case.

The problem with the religious mindset is that often evidence and revelation are treated as interchangeable and equal in terms of theory. I have looked at the world and come to a conclusion through what is available in terms of evidence. A religious person may well question his or her own beliefs, but this is acting contrary to the will of the church, which thrives on unsolved mystery and uses faith (or delusion) and revelation as its only answer. It requires obedience and a 'leap of faith' to believe in religion, it is not the same for science.

I don't believe in God because I believe that the amount of evidence disproves its/his/her existence. I personally don't believe in organised religion not because I am closed minded to its ideas, but because I have thought critically about how it works within a community. It depressed me when I saw a chanting homogenous unit, never questioning why they are there on a Sunday, happy in the notion that they act as a 'flock', almost legitimising an unquestioning outlook. To me I reached the conclusion that this was a divisive force that quashed scepticism through the use of dogma. Somebody else may have a different diagnosis and see the same thing in a different light, such as this was a splendid representation of community spirit in action.

This topic is about belief and why you believe it, I did not realise I had to provide a utopian solution and demonstrate that a secular alternative would be better. As I said that is my belief, as subjective as anyone elses. I am an atheist (or 99.9999% atheist) because of the evidence that there was no creator. I am an anti-theist because even if it was proved that God existed I would never sanction the human created institutions that apparently he/she/it needs for his/her/its worship/. Nor would I sanction unconditional obedience to a totalitarian creator, whose own morality and machinations seem to me to be questionable. If he is powerful enough to intervene then he has not been in anyway deserving of respect considering all the problems that blight the earth and the universe. If he is not powerful and does not intervene as in a deistic perspective, then he does not need all the material and dogmatic human creations that glorify his existence.

That's a very verbose post. You sure you know what you are? Anyway, good luck with those beliefs, a lot of projection going on there, I hope you can recover from your depression soon, maybe then you could work on your narcissism.

That's a very verbose post. You sure you know what you are? Anyway, good luck with those beliefs, a lot of projection going on there, I hope you can recover from your depression soon, maybe then you could work on your narcissism.

What’s you're religion?

Answer: I have no religion and this is why.....

I see no contradiction with my previous statement. Even the most pedantic person would not disagree that Religion is all about belief.

By all means patronise away and be sarcastic, it’s a skill most people have. Clearly only those who believe they know what God thinks have a passport to understanding. As a member of the RCC and a christian, in my opinion you must be the one guilty of narcissism. Only such an egocentric faith could believe that God's role and purpose is centred on humanity, a supreme being that truly cares about the petty thoughts and actions of individuals.

Hope the verbosity was kept in check for you there. I am expecting someone possessed of such formidable mental powers as you to have a ready answer. Or atleast a pedantic statement if you can't find any real counter-argument. Are you sure you know what you are? Nothing you said was constructive, merely a refutation of the form and structure in which I phrased my original post (followed by obligatory sarcasm).